MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040551337 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2020.04.010

Peritoneal Dialysis–Associated Peritonitis: Suggestions for Management and Mistakes to Avoid

2020· review· en· W3040551337 on OpenAlexaff
Muthana Al Sahlawi, Joanne M. Bargman, Jeffrey Perl

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersBaxter Healthcare CorporationPartners Healthcare
KeywordsPeritonitisPeritoneal dialysisMedicineIntensive care medicineHemodialysisDialysisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis that is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Peritonitis increases treatment costs and hospitalization events and is the most common reason for transfer to hemodialysis. Although there is much focus on preventing peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis, equally as important is appropriate management to minimize the morbidity of a peritonitis episode when it has occurred. Despite the presence of international guidelines on peritonitis treatment, the evidence base to support optimal peritonitis treatment practices is lacking, leaving the practitioner to rely on clinical experience and extrapolate from across other infection treatment practices. This article reviews common mistakes and misconceptions that we have observed in the management of peritonitis that may compromise treatment success. It also provides suggestions on common controversial aspects of peritonitis management based on the best available literature. Although the use of the word mistakes is somewhat controversial and subjective, we acknowledge that evidence is lacking and have based many of our suggestions on clinical judgment, experience, and available data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney MedicineSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207